Gun ownership in this day and age

[Dracarys]

For those of you keeping track, this is yet another straw man argument. Dracarys would rather argue against the position of giving your valuables to the invader (because it is so easy to argue against) rather than address anyone’s serious arguments.

As usual you call any argument you disagree with a “strawman”. I actually was not even making an argument, so your point is baseless. I was merely expressing an opinion that many anti gun posters here have a naive view of the world.

I don’t want to be accused of yet another strawman,so I will point out that based upon your comment “Dracarys would rather argue against the position of giving your valuables to the invader” I must ask you if you are you in fact in favor of throwing all you cash, jewelry, and maybe your TV at a burglar and then hoping he will go away? I want to be clear before I say anything more.

But let’s move it away from home. I described to you an incident that occured in my state where a man diffused a potential carjacking situation by merely brandishing a gun. No one was hurt, the bad guy ran away, and the would be victim got to keep his car and all the contents. Based upon what you have said in the past I can’t prove to you that had this man not had a gun people would have died and this incident will not show up as a statistic in your prior cost/benefit analysis. However I think it is clear that since the would be victim did have a gun and was willing to use it things did work out well. If the gun grabbers had their way this man would have been unarmed.

Just a note there is NO ONE keeping track of what you claim to be “strawman arguments”. This is just your apparent attempt to be sarcastic.

“All it takes is one” can be applied to either risk.

I just did a quick search on Google and found Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia

From the above death by accident accounts for about 1.5% of the activity where as homicides are 33%. I submit that had those 33% of homicide victims had a firearm, had knowledge of good tactics, and spent time at the range they may have been able to save themselves from being a victim. Of course these stats do not give incident details so its hard to draw conclusions.

For some reason you are very focused on accidental shootings. Why? Are you afraid your gun toting neighbor will be cleaning his gun and accidentally shoot you through the walls of his house and yours? Maybe you have a concern for his kids? I grew up with guns as a child and because my father took me to the range I never had temptation or curiosity to “play” with gun he kept at his bedside. They do make quick access gun safes, so it is far better to advocate for their use instead of not having a gun.

 

[Dracarys]

I agree that the London police are often not armed,

I had the pleasure of informally speaking to a member of Scotland Yard. When I bought up this issue he laughed and shook his head. He told me it is common knowledge that many London police are indeed unofficially carrying a firearm. They hide the weapon of coarse, but they all well know that their job is dangerous and many UK criminals are now well armed with guns and knives.

 

[Dracarys]

Because a gun can, and often is, used to kill someone other than a home invader.

It also can and often is used to kill a home invader, would be rapist, would be mugger, etc. As I have told other posters these statistics are severely skewed because incidents where a gun is just brandished to scare away a would be home invader, mugger, etc are not factored in. Also many of these incidents are not even reported. We know that they occur, yet no one seems to give any consideration to people who use guns to stop an incident before it occurs.

I submit that it goes farther than that. I know many business owners who deal in cash. They do multiple daily bank deposits while armed. If they did not have a firearm they would not be able to carry out essential bank deposits. Law abiding Americans should not be precluded from carrying out their business just because some people ridiculously believe guns are somehow inherently evil.

 

[_Ruby]

Brendan:

I agree that the London police are often not armed,

I had the pleasure of informally speaking to a member of Scotland Yard. When I bought up this issue he laughed and shook his head. He told me it is common knowledge that many London police are indeed unofficially carrying a firearm. They hide the weapon of coarse, but they all well know that their job is dangerous and many UK criminals are now well armed with guns and knives.

This is utter rubbish.

My sister has been in the Metropolitan Police force for a long, long time. The claim they are ‘secretly armed’ with guns is quote ‘‘so stupid, only a complete (profanity removed) idiot would believe it’’

 

[Dracarys]

But if Delta Airlines decided it wanted to allow passengers to carry guns on board their commercial flights, they would be prohibited from doing so by law. A

As I said above pressurized airplanes are a special case. If you shoot in an airplane and strike a window a lot of people will die.

Banning guns, at least in our society, makes no more sense to me than mandating gun ownership.

Yet there are those who do want a total ban. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ban-semi-automatics-half-want-to-ban-all-guns

You must admit we now have the most liberal members of Congress we have ever had in the past. These politicians get a lot of support. I can certainly see an increase in so called “gun free zones”. This of course ridiculously assumes that criminals will honor signs posted restricting the carry of weapons. This is why I favor armed and trained school personnel. But even this gets screams of protest from the left.

 

[Dracarys]

his is utter rubbish.

My sister has been in the Metropolitan Police force for a long, long time. The claim they are ‘secretly armed’ with guns is quote ‘‘so stupid, only a complete f-ing idiot would believe it’’

My source is a Scotland Yard detective with 25 years on the force. Your juvenile use of vulgarity and insults adds nothing to your claim.

 

[prayerrider]

In my state, only unloaded and locked firearms are permitted on school property, in vehicles, CCW permit notwithstanding. This renders them virtually useless in the case of an active school shooter, since seconds count. But not to worry, LEOs will be along eventually to count the bodies and interview witnesses.

 

[prayerrider]

Yes. Quote or not, that language is unacceptable. Flagged.

 

[Dracarys]

In my state, only unloaded and locked firearms are permitted on school property, in vehicles, CCW permit notwithstanding. This renders them virtually useless in the case of an active school shooter, since seconds count. But not to worry, LEOs will be along eventually to count the bodies and interview witnesses.

Its like these idiots are deliberty setting up soft targets for every lunatic active shooter. They even advertise by setting up “no firearms” allowed signs. Their thought process is not just dumb, it’s dangerous.

 

[prayerrider]

My permit only has restrictions on use of alcohol or drugs while carrying. Nothing about private businesses with signs posted. I ignore those. The worst they can do is ask me to leave if they know I’m carrying. But I’m carrying concealed. :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

 

[Dracarys]

Nothing about private businesses with signs posted. I ignore those.

You could end up saving many lives by intervening in an active shooter incident, but the gun grabbers would only focus on criticizing you for having your gun in the first place.

Your a good guy. We need more like you.

 

[prayerrider]

Thanks! One thing working with kids has taught me, too, is to keep a cool head at all times.
That doesn’t extend to trying to “reason with” violent attackers. If they were reasonable people they wouldn’t be commiting violent crimes, duh!

 

[_Ruby]

_Ruby:

his is utter rubbish.

My sister has been in the Metropolitan Police force for a long, long time. The claim they are ‘secretly armed’ with guns is quote ‘‘so stupid, only a complete f-ing idiot would believe it’’

My source is a Scotland Yard detective with 25 years on the force.

Your juvenile use of vulgarity and insults adds nothing to your claim.

Yuh huh. Any evidence beyond what this ‘detective’ supposedly told you? You claim he told you it was ‘common knowledge’, so where is commonly known?

My sister has been on the beat in London for 15 years, and worked in 3 London boroughs, 2 of which have had her engaged in high knife crime hotspots. She would love to know how these ‘secret guns’ are obtained and used for protection when:

• The only officers able to use firearms in the UK have to go through rigorous selection process with a high failure rate, they don’t have them lying around the station for anyone to help themselves to on the sly.
• Handguns in the UK are illegal (with the exception of Northern Ireland). They would need to be buying these handguns from illegal sources in large numbers. They wouldn’t just be breaking the law buying it, they would then be breaking the law every time they carried it and doing so in a profession that is the least likely to tolerate that behaviour.
• Officers in the met patrol with body cameras, so they would have almost no chance of discharging a secret, illegal firearm on duty, even in self defence, without being fired and jailed.
• If so many were ‘commonly’ doing this, then why did the 2017 survey of London police officers only have 1/4 of the respondents stating they believed the police force should be routinely armed? 75% by contrast said they wanted tasers as standard.

Im sorry she couldn’t describe her destain more eloquently for you. I mean, she isn’t, but I’m happy to edit in respect of forum rules.

 

[pnewton]

Yuh huh. Any evidence beyond what this ‘detective’ supposedly told you? You claim he told you it was ‘common knowledge’, so where is commonly known?

I guess actual information is less accepted here than blind speculation, which is what the logic fallacy “appeal to common knowledge” is.

As I have told other posters these statistics are severely skewed because incidents where a gun is just brandished to scare away a would be home invader, mugger, etc are not factored in.

Yes that what you have said. However, some people prefer actual evidence to unsubstantiated speculation by strangers. Yet you called others “idiots” above. Even people unstudied in understanding of logic fallacies can intuit when they exist.

 

[pnewton]

The worst they can do is ask me to leave if they know I’m carrying.

This varies state to state, but in Texas, entering where a sign is posted is criminal trespass, though it is only a ticket. If you are given written notice though, it is an arrest-able offense. I personally and surprised to read this, with all the talk about how people who carry concealed are supposedly law-abiding citizens.

 

[prayerrider]

As I said, “my permit.” I don’t live in Texas.
If it’s not a crime, by definition it’s “law-abiding.” If a business owner asks you to leave and you comply, there is no crime committed.

I carry to Mass, too. Actually never seen any signs. Though I do know of priests who enjoy shooting guns. Some even carry.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In my state, only unloaded and locked firearms are permitted on school property, in vehicles, CCW permit notwithstanding. This renders them virtually useless in the case of an active school shooter, since seconds count. But not to worry, LEOs will be along eventually to count the bodies and interview witnesses.

I have yet to see any gun advocates in the thread give any serious consideration to probabilities. There is a reason why we do not harden the roofs of our homes against meteors - because they have very low probability.

Case in point: The poster here is trying to use active shooter incidents in schools as an excuse for more liberal concealed-carry rules. The fact is active shooter incidents in schools are extremely rare, regardless of how much attention they get on the news. But if every school allows concealed carry on the premises of the school, even if it reduces the deaths in the rare case of a mass shooting at a school, it brings with it a whole new set of problems. With liberal concealed-carry in schools, someone can get a concealed-carry permit and then use it to bring in a gun with the intention of being the shooter himself. Also there is this: The chances of a concealed-carry person being on hand when needed is extremely low. They would not be where they are needed in 99% of the cases.

Now there is a somewhat reasonable intermediate step. Either hire trained and armed security guards in the schools, or offer intensive training to a few select school personnel to be armed. They would be on hand when needed much more often than random visitors to the school.

The appeal to the “Save the Day” scenario is just a grab for glory on the part of the gun owners, not unlike the motivation of Wreck-it-Ralph in Wreck-it-Ralph. And we see how that turned out!

 

[prayerrider]

I never advocated for every teacher to carry. I would, if asked. And I would undertake whatever additional training is required. It’s my duty to defend kids with my life, if necessary. I wouldn’t mind having something more effective than a fire extinguisher, a white board marker, or a kid’s “stone ages project” club (true story).

 

[pnewton]

Wow! I apologize. I made a major error in thinking, putting two things together that do not belong.

 

[prayerrider]

Thanks.
If a business owner asked me to leave for any reason, of course I’d comply. But if the owner knew I was carrying that could only mean I didn’t dress properly and was “printing.” That could jeopardize my permit, too. Fortunately these days there are many options, from IWB holsters to belly bands to fanny and sling packs to pocket holsters. LEOs might suspect that a sling pack, for example, has a firearm but unless the weapon is printing, it’s legal carry.

People who carry sometimes know more than LE about this stuff. I think it’s due diligence to keep abreast of the laws.